|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I'd venture to say that soviet and post-soviet maintenance operations standards had more to do with that than inherent design. The problem with Russian/Soviet civil aviation has never really been their aircraft; rather, its the human element. In Soviet times, Aeroflot operated in a very top-down manner, with very stiff personal penalties (such as forced labour) if you refused to fly for whatever reason. As a result, their accident rate was appallingly bad. Sadly, things are almost as bad today. Funny thing is, the larger airlines in Russia, such as Aeroflot and Transaero, operate largely the same to any other airline in Europe or elsewhere; their occurrence rates, as a result, have not been significantly different than any major European or North American airline for the some time now.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
those little yaks were also used on some pretty appalling routes in terms of weather, lots of upcountry in fuckoff siberia or the 'stans. they were expressly designed to be able to use unimproved airstrips. that don't help their case much either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Funny thing is, the larger airlines in Russia, such as Aeroflot and Transaero, operate largely the same to any other airline in Europe or elsewhere; their occurrence rates, as a result, have not been significantly different than any major European or North American airline for the some time now. I think they have to in order to be allowed to run routes to EU destinations? That's the reason why the national carriers of North Korea and some Sub-Saharan African countries aren't allowed to fly to Europe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
That can be said of many western aircraft as well. I have absolutely no quams about getting into certain DeHavilland Canadia models despite there probably having been more Otters fatally crashed than built. The Beaver that picked us up at our wedding had been written off twice and fatally crashd once.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:those little yaks were also used on some pretty appalling routes in terms of weather, lots of upcountry in fuckoff siberia or the 'stans. they were expressly designed to be able to use unimproved airstrips. that don't help their case much either. Yeah just read the Wikipedia article (not complete I know) - wind shear, crash on takeoff, flown into a mountain, pilot error in poor conditions, mid air collision, icing related engine failure, shot down by air to air missile, flown into mountain again, another mid air collision, another engine failure, bungled takeoff from controller hurrying the crew, another crash into a mountain, collision with objects on landing approach, gross overloading, ran out of fuel, yet another crash into a mountain and finally a collision with a building during an aborted landing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Beijing International has all the airlines split up pretty evenly between it's terminals. All the first world airlines, Emirates, Cathay Pacific, etc are in Terminal 3, the shiny brand new building. Iran National airlines, Zimbabwe Airlines, Air Koryo, Continental and Delta go into the lovely old Terminal 2 building. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:those little yaks were also used on some pretty appalling routes in terms of weather, lots of upcountry in fuckoff siberia or the 'stans. they were expressly designed to be able to use unimproved airstrips. that don't help their case much either. And i'm betting that Soviet radio navigation wasn't exactly up to western standards either. Probably lots of dead reckoning and NDB approaches into lovely conditions and tiny airstrips.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
Flew last week on a business trip from and was shocked the flight involved a Colgan Dash 8. Sucked it up and expected it to be the worst flight ever but the aircraft was a Q400NG. I've flown on a ton of Dash 8's before but the NG was very quiet, very nice interior, but slow (almost an extra hour on the flight). Return was a E-170 reminded me of the BAe-146's. Amazingly vicious power, speed, and horrible air conditioning at altitude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:You take that back! Their lovely F-4s. The years of Iranian maintenance have not been kind to those jets; not as bad as their F-14s, but these are Frankenstein jets full of homemade parts. That said, the radar is a piece of poo poo. It was pretty good in the early days of air-to-air radar, but it'll never ever EVER find a low-RCS target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 12:19
|
|
|
Well, this is something. Privately engineered plane planning to hit lower atmoshpere. Being built in his mom's backyard in Uganda  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orbit-2015.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 12:23
|
|
|
Viktor posted:Return was a E-170 reminded me of the BAe-146's. Amazingly vicious power, speed, and horrible air conditioning at altitude. E-Jets are tight, except when the AC powers on it blows little chunks of ice on you sometimes. That's the only AC related issue I've ever noted on them. Overhead bin space is marginal too I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Turns out it was a Mig-17. Taiwanese F-86 takes a shot at a PRC Mig-17 during one of the various squabbles over the strait. "Taiwanese AIM-9B hit a Chinese Communist MiG-17 without exploding, the missile lodging itself in the airframe of the MiG after which the pilot was able to bring both plane and missile back to base." I'd plow her field, if yaknowwhaddimean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Color me skeptical, but given Iran's history and the RQ-170s abilities, it's more likely that it just had a part failure somewhere. According to the latest statement, "U.S. officials tell NBC that CIA operators were flying the unmanned drone when it veered out of control and headed deep into Iran. The drone eventually ran out of fuel and crashed in Iran's remote mountains." That actually lends some credibility to the Iranian's cyber-warfare story. If they hijacked the controls they would want to bring it back to an Iranian base. If the CIA was flying it they wouldn't just let it run out of fuel over enemy territory. However, you really need to question how they were able to reverse engineer the protocol, discover encryption keys, etc. It's starting to sound like perhaps the recent attacks on RSA and Lockheed Martin might have been more interested in drones than the F-22 program as originally speculated. I would be surprised if Iran had the capability to do this on their own, I would be more inclined to think that the Chinese were involved in a joint operation. The fact that Iran had forces out in the mountains picking up the stealth drone before we were able to send in a UAV with a hellfire to destroy it could mean either our bureaucracy was tied down, their QRF was anticipating the recovery, or they just got super lucky, and I definitely wouldn't chalk it down to luck. e: Apparently, breaking their encryption isn't all that hard. Iran has done it before. "The potential drone vulnerability lies in an unencrypted downlink between the unmanned craft and ground control. The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said." Well, I suppose their worldview just changed. Maybe one day the Pentagon won't run national defense like Adobe and leave in a known exploit for 20 years. Mr.Peabody fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Dec 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
lol dem browns too stupid to hack our easily hackable poo poo that any 16 year old nerd could exploit our attitudes towards our adversaries are typically hilarious
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I do like how the US just litters their high-tech advantages away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
 Just a Vulcan upside-down. Whatevs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
i never understood the thing for the Vulcan until RIGHT NOW 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:According to the latest statement, "U.S. officials tell NBC that CIA operators were flying the unmanned drone when it veered out of control and headed deep into Iran. The drone eventually ran out of fuel and crashed in Iran's remote mountains." Jamming a control up link doesn't require cryptography, it just requires RF. If they jammed it when it was heading in a direction they wanted it to go, it might just stay on that course until running out of gas. The unencrypted downlink is still in use because key management is a pain in the rear end1. It's not that "local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit [the security hole]," it's that the local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit the intelligence to be gained by seeing themselves on camera. Drones are still a huge net win: a spy plane went down over an Islamic nation we have poo poo relations with, and we're out a $10M airframe (as opposed to a $100M one) and nobody's on live leak getting beheaded about it. 1: from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html that you linked quote:Officials stepped up efforts to prevent insurgents from intercepting video feeds after the July incident. The difficulty, officials said, is that adding encryption to a network that is more than a decade old involves more than placing a new piece of equipment on individual drones. Instead, many components of the network linking the drones to their operators in the U.S., Afghanistan or Pakistan have to be upgraded to handle the changes. Additional concerns remain about the vulnerability of the communications signals to electronic jamming, though there's no evidence that has occurred, said people familiar with reports on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
loving lol if you think the iranians would behead an american aviator shot down over iran
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
He probably wouldn't be beheaded, but there probably would be a decent chance he'd be interrogated to gently caress and back and wish he was. His point still stands, a drone is a far more palatable loss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Pretty much the whole point of using them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:And i'm betting that Soviet radio navigation wasn't exactly up to western standards either. Probably lots of dead reckoning and NDB approaches into lovely conditions and tiny airstrips. Maintenance practices however, were not-so. Poland's most infamous air disaster was caused by fitting half the required amount of ball bearings to an engine turbine bearing due to a spares shortage. When the aircraft carried out a missed approach after completing a flight from New York the no.2 engine of the IL-62 exploded and brought down the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:loving lol if you think the iranians would behead an american aviator shot down over iran Hyperbole is a nuanced concept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Pretty much the whole point of using them in the first place. Yes. There are those (probably not here though) that actually bemoan them because humans are no longer piloting them* so it's just like we're tearing terminators loose. *Of course they still are, but that seems to be beside the point
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:e: Apparently, breaking their encryption isn't all that hard. Iran has done it before. BonzoESC posted:Jamming a control up link doesn't require cryptography, it just requires RF. If they jammed it when it was heading in a direction they wanted it to go, it might just stay on that course until running out of gas. Besides that, it's worth pointing out that the WSJ story is about insurgents gaining access to the video downlink, not the control datalink, so that earlier story about the Predator video downlink being "hacked" has absolutely no bearing on this situation as far as whether Iran managed to somehow "hack the Gibson" and take control of the drone (hint: there's a 99.9999% chance that's not what happened). Two different systems, two different levels of encryption. Regarding key management being a pain in the rear end, Bruce Schneier had some relevant thoughts on that. As far as what Iran would do with folks it captured in a public shootdown, it's not a perfect match but this seems to be a fair example to possibly shed some light on their possible behavior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
So this is what it's like to be on the ground near an A-10 strike. It's Like some sort of terrifying Dragon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r112jr6gC0&feature=related
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 09:49
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Yes. There are those (probably not here though) that actually bemoan them because humans are no longer piloting them* so it's just like we're tearing terminators loose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
   If someone could explain this to me that would be great.  More Here. http://englishrussia.com/2011/12/07/the-sukhoi-aircrafts-photo-collection/ Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:
Aren't those the  as gently caress? The camera angle makes it look even more awesome. 3 jets in that photo that I can see.If Russian pilots got the same amount of stick time as Western pilots, and the jets got similar MX, those would be downright scary to face in a dogfight. So goddamned maneuverable. Thinking up awesome ideas and then watching them get implemented by the West is the story of their lives though; if I recall correctly, a researcher at Lockheed stumbled across a Russian mathematician's paper and found it very applicable for a certain stealth project... Instead they mostly crash on their own or get shot down in wars because they're being flown by some poor bastard who's been up in the air for the third time that year.  I think India can afford to throw the money at their Su-30MKIs and pilots to keep them operational though (record of their Mig-21s aside...). I believe only 2 have crashed so far, one with a fatality.
movax fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
movax posted:Aren't those the White Knights being Uh, Russian Knights, bro. Are you thinking of some subbranch of the KKK? Also Putin just tripled Russian defence spending. and won reelection too. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Uh, Russian Knights, bro. Are you thinking of some subbranch of the KKK?  For some reason I thought they were called the White Knights, no idea why.e: this looks like an Ace Combat screenshot 
movax fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
movax posted:
PAK-FA?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
movax posted:Aren't those the It looks very much like the front two are physically jammed together. Look at the left one's right wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:It looks very much like the front two are physically jammed together. Look at the left one's right wing. It looks like that but you are actually seeing the front one's vertical stabilizer, not the middle one's elevator.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
I think it's just an optical illusion due to shadows/paint color/alignment. This should make it a bit clearer. Also, they're much further apart that it looks- you can tell from the relative size that the jet in the foreground is WAY closer- probably several hundred feet separation. It would be too dangerous to fly this in close formation since the pilots couldn't see each other.
grover fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Dec 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
They were just banking so they could approach the crowd from an angle more likely to cause maximum chaos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:Incredible pictures, that one is probably my favourite though. Thanks for the share! (That dude must be close to passing out, look how tight that looks)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
It just occured to me that SU-27's are almost certainly the largest aircraft ever used by a demo team. And not just by a little either. They are way bigger than Thunderthuds, or F-4's, nevermind wee littles like F-18's and F-16s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 05:24
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:It just occured to me that SU-27's are almost certainly the largest aircraft ever used by a demo team. Air Mobility Command deserves a formation demonstrator team.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Ridge_Runner_5 posted:PAK-FA? Yup. The end of Western Air Power as we know it has never looked so good. Slo-Tek posted:It just occured to me that SU-27's are almost certainly the largest aircraft ever used by a demo team. When I first read this I immediately thought of the Thunderthuds and the F-4, but then I went and looked the dimensions up and holy poo poo...the Flanker is a seriously long aircraft. I've never seen one in person, so I guess I just never made the connection in my head with all the pictures I've seen. I mean, even if we played what if games and pretended the F-15 or F-14 was flown by a demo team, the Flanker would still have them by almost 10 feet on length and 8+ feet on wingspan (assuming we don't count the Tomcat with them fully extended with is sort of cheating). However, this Boomerjinks posted:Air Mobility Command deserves a formation demonstrator team. reminded me that The Four Horsemen were a demo team once. Yes, that is a four ship C-130 demo team. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Dec 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 05:33
|
|